Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Laois_Man

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree. I think she did as best she could to be honest. She's a mess, but it's not an entirely bad deal. They can't do trade deals if they're in the CU. That's what her focus has been.

Except for the small fact that the withdrawal agreement keeps them in the CU

Eod100

Inquitus wrote: »

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1111249001913946115

So 12th April extension? Was only going to be extended to 22 May if WA passed. UK to go back to EU for a further extension then?

Laois_Man

Laois_Man wrote: »

Except for the small fact that the withdrawal agreement keeps them in the CU

It's a temporary measure. They can choose to align to EU standards in the future removing their ability to do free trade deals, or they can remove themselves from the European market. If they can work up a solution that enables both, fair play.

Why anyone thinks this basic fact is the EU's doing is beyond me. It's just so very rudimentary and obvious.

Zubeneschamali

Eod100 wrote: »

SUK to go back to EU for a further extension then?

Yes, but they have to be in the right frame of mind: last minute panic.


So expect them to request the extension at 10 pm on the 11th.

Anteayer

What I find amusing is how anyone who knew anything about the DUP would ever think they're easy to negotiate with or that you could blackmail, bribe them or otherwise manipulate them into changing their mind.

I find a lot of their rhetoric and policies rather obnoxious but they have a reputation for being incredibly inflexible and utterly uncompromising.

Are the Tories really that dumb or is it just gross arrogance and overestimating their own ability to negotiate?

A simple Google search of "DUP" or "who was Ian Paisley" should have given them a sense of what that were up against.

Laois_Man

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a temporary measure. They can choose to align to EU standards in the future removing their ability to do free trade deals, or they can remove themselves from the European market. If they can work up a solution that enables both, fair play.

Why anyone thinks this basic fact is the EU's doing is beyond me. It's just so very rudimentary and obvious.

Who said it's the EU's doing?

Also, Teresa May has no mandate to remove the UK from the single market. That is not the Leave campaign that was run in 2015-2016, they just moved the goal posts afterwards.....

If she wants to leave the single market, there needs to be a campaign that advocates this option.

As for it being a temporary measure.....yes it's a temporary measure for the years it takes the 27 members to agree to give the UK all the advantages of being in the EU and none of the disadvantage...cos that's what they think they should have!

robinph

Leadsom was talking as if 11pm tomorrow was the absolute deadline for the WA being passed by the house, think that is just more scare tactics though. But why, oh why is May putting herself through the pain of having the WA rejected again tomorrow when no changes have been made other than they leave off the attached letter.

They can get it passed tomorrow just by adding in a 2nd referendum, May can then walk off into the sunset knowing that she got her deal passed, Boris can take over and fail to get the 2nd referendum passed and it then becomes Boris problem not Mays about what to do next and how to get through a GE.

Laois_Man

Laois_Man wrote: »

As for it being a temporary measure.....yes it's a temporary measure for the years it takes the 27 members to agree to give the UK all the advantages of being in the EU and none of the disadvantage...cos that's what they think they should have!

For what it's worth, I think their arguing for a time limit on the backstop is the grossest display of collective stupidity going. They're currently going through hell because of an end date. Any negotiations with the US etc. will be dominated by the same thing. The US sits and waits, like the EU has. If the EU had insisted on a time limit, there would be MPs arguing against one because of this very thing.

I just don't understand.

BonnieSituation

Anteayer wrote: »

What I find amusing is how anyone who knew anything about the DUP would ever think they're easy to negotiate with or that you could blackmail, bribe them or otherwise manipulate them into changing their mind.

I find a lot of their rhetoric and policies rather obnoxious but they have a reputation for being incredibly inflexible and utterly uncompromising.

Are the Tories really that dumb or is it just gross arrogance and overestimating their own ability to negotiate?

A simple Google search of "DUP" or "who was Ian Paisley" should have given them a sense of what that were up against.

Unfortunately that reputation is incorrect despite being the prevailing one. They have been proven at almost every juncture to just be behind everyone else.

They're always against everything until the adults get them onside and pretend that it was the DUP's idea to do whatever it is that needs to happen.

An Ciarraioch

robinph wrote: »

Leadsom was talking as if 11pm tomorrow was the absolute deadline for the WA being passed by the house, think that is just more scare tactics though. But why, oh why is May putting herself through the pain of having the WA rejected again tomorrow when no changes have been made other than they leave off the attached letter.

They can get it passed tomorrow just by adding in a 2nd referendum, May can then walk off into the sunset knowing that she got her deal passed, Boris can take over and fail to get the 2nd referendum passed and it then becomes Boris problem not Mays about what to do next and how to get through a GE.

It is the deadline for the May 22nd extension, however - miss it, and they will essentially have to declare their intentions next week, in order to finalise matters before the 12th.

jester77

You can say what you want about the DUP, and I wouldn't be a fan, but at least they stand by their beliefs and everyone knows where they stand. Look at the nonsense that is going on in the HOC, where a lot of MP's will now vote for the WA because May said she will resign. It is the exact same WA that they rejected only a few weeks ago and nothing has changed. UK politics is just a pure circus where the interest of the people is majorly irrelevant to a lot them. The system needs a major overhaul.

Peregrinus

bilston wrote: »

While I fundamentally disagree with the DUP on Brexit, they have at least stuck to their guns on the WA, they don't like the deal, so unless it changes they won't vote for it. Now you may disagree with their ideology (and 99% of posters obviously do), but I'd argue the ERG MPs who decide to support the WA because it means May will go have far less scruples than the DUPers.

The reality is the WA probably does weaken the Union, it will most likely separate NI from the rest of the UK, that's why they are unlikely to vote for it.

Of course they don't represent the majority view in NI, and even a lot of moderate Unionists like myself would accept an Irish Sea Customs Border as I think it would arguably give NI the best of both worlds. But from the DUPs perspective rice the union is their "guiding star"

If the Union was their guiding star they wouldn't be supporting Brexit; they'd be staunch remainers. There's no attainable Brexit that reinforces the Union.

To be fair to them, much as I hate being fair to them, when the decided to back Brexit they did so with no consideration or discussion, so they didn't actually know that it was a Union-undermining step. And they did that because they never thought that Brexit might get up, and therefore they didn't need to think about how it might play out in practice. They opposed it not for reason but for instinct - their instinctive dislike of the EU, which they have always regarded as a Romish conspiracy against Protestantism, and their instinct always to tog out with the Tory hard-right, who they think will, of British politicians, be the most friendly towards the Union, and therefore the ones they should stay close to.

They should have had the maturity and the confidence to pivot when Brexit became a reality, and when it became apparent how damaging it was to Northern Ireland and to the Union. But pivoting is not in their DNA; they experience it as a defeat.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the Union was their guiding star they wouldn't be supporting Brexit; they'd be staunch remainers. There's no attainable Brexit that reinforces the Union.

To be fair to them, much as I hate being fair to them, when the decided to back Brexit they did so with no consideration or discussion, so they didn't actually know that it was a Union-undermining step. And they did that because they never thought that Brexit might get up, and therefore they didn't need to think about how it might play out in practice. They opposed it not for reason but for instinct - their instinctive dislike of the EU, which they have always regarded as a Romish conspiracy against Protestantism, and their instinct always to tog out with the Tory hard-right, who they think will, of British politicians, be the most friendly towards the Union, and therefore the ones they should stay close to.

They should have had the maturity and the confidence to pivot when Brexit became a reality, and when it became apparent how damaging it was to Northern Ireland and to the Union. But pivoting is not in their DNA; they experience it as a defeat.

Excellent post.

Leroy42

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

It is the deadline for the May 22nd extension, however - miss it, and they will essentially have to declare their intentions next week, in order to finalise matters before the 12th.

But it is just as likely that should they fail to pass it tomorrow but agree something it the 12 then the EU will simply accept the 22nd May.

The EU effectively move the A50 period from 2 years to 2 years and 2 weeks

A Dub in Glasgo

Fun and games in the Scottish Parliament with Sturgeon toying with the Tories over May

https://twitter.com/mabonelis/status/1111244661341986817

BonnieSituation

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the Union was their guiding star they wouldn't be supporting Brexit; they'd be staunch remainers. There's no attainable Brexit that reinforces the Union.

To be fair to them, much as I hate being fair to them, when the decided to back Brexit they did so with no consideration or discussion, so they didn't actually know that it was a Union-undermining step. And they did that because they never thought that Brexit might get up, and therefore they didn't need to think about how it might play out in practice. They opposed it not for reason but for instinct - their instinctive dislike of the EU, which they have always regarded as a Romish conspiracy against Protestantism, and their instinct always to tog out with the Tory hard-right, who they think will, of British politicians, be the most friendly towards the Union, and therefore the ones they should stay close to.

They should have had the maturity and the confidence to pivot when Brexit became a reality, and when it became apparent how damaging it was to Northern Ireland and to the Union. But pivoting is not in their DNA; they experience it as a defeat.

I'm normally a big fan of your insightful and normally erudite posts but I have to take issue with this part.

You're saying that because of them being instinctively tone deaf that they should get a pass for backing Brexit? That their actions in this regard should be seen in the context of the result being unforeseen?

If they had just backed down a notch or spent the last 2 years building a ladder to climb down instead of being so pig-headed I might have given them some credit. But all they've done us acted like a toddler in a sash and they need to reap what they've sown

BonnieSituation

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Fun and games in the Scottish Parliament with Sturgeon toying with the Tories over May

https://twitter.com/mabonelis/status/1111244661341986817

That's a fantastic line

FrancieBrady

jester77 wrote: »

You can say what you want about the DUP, and I wouldn't be a fan, but at least they stand by their beliefs and everyone knows where they stand.

No, they actually don't stand by the Never Never Never stance. They were quite happy to operate the GFA after vociferously rejecting it.
They are now pivoting back to being against it because it suits them.
Remember the 'Chuckle Bros.'? A few short months before they wouldn't even be in the same room with a SF member.

As usual, TLDR has a good video on the votes.

It's honestly worth watching. He does a good job.

Strazdas

Laois_Man wrote: »

Who said it's the EU's doing?

Also, Teresa May has no mandate to remove the UK from the single market. That is not the Leave campaign that was run in 2015-2016, they just moved the goal posts afterwards.....

If she wants to leave the single market, there needs to be a campaign that advocates this option.

As for it being a temporary measure.....yes it's a temporary measure for the years it takes the 27 members to agree to give the UK all the advantages of being in the EU and none of the disadvantage...cos that's what they think they should have!

The Washington Post had a good article at the weekend about how No Deal was never mentioned once during the referendum campaign and about how it represents the complete failure of the Brexit ie "Brexit is a disaster, so let's just crash out with No Deal and to hell with the consequences".

The idea that the British public voted for it is laughable.

Akrasia

ShooterSF wrote: »

Should and I'm sure would be seen as highly undemocratic. To go back to a population that voted to leave and offer them an unpopular deal or cancel the whole thing when a lot want to leave without mays deal is stacking the referendum in remains favour.
You can say people can't be offered no deal because it is too dangerous but either you trust the people and your ability to argue your case to them or you don't go back to them at all.
I'm pro eu but the willingness of other pro eu people to subvert and manipulate the system to keep the UK in is appaling to me. If the same referendum was mays deal or no deal you'd rightly be outraged too.

It's a hell of a lot more democratic to ask the public to either ratify her deal or remain in the EU, than to force the HOC to choose between either her deal which is, as you said, extremely unpopular with both the public and the parliament, or 'No deal' which is also extremely unpopular.

If there isn't a deal agreed by 12th of April, the EU could refuse to extend A50 again, and that means crash out.

The public voted to leave, the parliament spent 3 years trying their hardest to leave, and now that the fruits of their negotiations are plain to see, the people should have a right to vote for or against it.

Akrasia

Laois_Man wrote: »

There's absolutely no point in having a second referendum until the people of Britain have a decent "leave" option that they can choose - May's withdrawal agreement doesn't cut it. It needs a new PM with a new WA negotiated with the May red lines off the table

There's no point in having a 2nd referendum that is so vague and open to interpretation that it cannot be implemented without the same kind of parliamentary paralysis that we have seen these past 3 years.

A referendum needs to have a very specific outcome. Either accept a specified and defined deal, or remain in the EU. All this nonsense about including 'no deal' as an option, or having a shopping list of various types of aspirational brexits wouldn't work the moment the negotiators hit a brick wall beyond which they have no mandate to negotiate

BonnieSituation

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, they actually don't stand by the Never Never Never stance. They were quite happy to operate the GFA after vociferously rejecting it.
They are now pivoting back to being against it because it suits them.
Remember the 'Chuckle Bros.'? A few short months before they wouldn't even be in the same room with a SF member.

See above Francie. There's been a prevailing "at least they're consistent" attitude towards the DUP recently on here.

Let's see how long it lasts. They may surprise us.

An Ciarraioch

http://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1111270653540352000

Laois_Man

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

http://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1111270653540352000

So they are tying to get Bercow to approve an MV3 vote....by showing it would not be a repeat of MV2....by showing it is a repeat of MV1

fash

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's a fantastic line

Possibly from here:
https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1111036247114502146

Charles Babbage

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, they actually don't stand by the Never Never Never stance. They were quite happy to operate the GFA after vociferously rejecting it.
They are now pivoting back to being against it because it suits them.
Remember the 'Chuckle Bros.'? A few short months before they wouldn't even be in the same room with a SF member.

Ian Paisley (Snr) ended up beng thrown out for being too friendly with Taigs subsequently though.

The DUP presumed Brexit wouldn't pass. They probably then presumed that the interests of British industry would ensure a modest Brexit that wouldn't require much of a backstop. In both cases they underestimated the lunacy of the English, who they presumed had more sense than they had.

They'll probably wriggle free though, as there will be a deal which they can say they opposed, even though they will be relieved at this.

Quin_Dub

##Mod Note##

All, I appreciate the desire to share information in such a fast moving topic , but if you are posting links to other content (Twitter , YouTube etc.) please add your own summations or opinions please.

Let's try to limit the "Take a look at this" kind of posts if we can.

Thanks a lot.

Infini

Laois_Man wrote: »

So they are tying to get Bercow to approve an MV3 vote....by showing it would not be a repeat of MV2....by showing it is a repeat of MV1

The 3rd vote needs to be different from the last in some way to allow anotuer vote. In this case the only way she can do so is if its a binary decision not an accept or reject vote, ie. Either accept the WA or a 2nd referendum will be called. Then its no longer the same vote because theres movement one way or another.

Laois_Man

Infini wrote: »

The 3rd vote needs to be different from the last in some way to allow anotuer vote. In this case the only way she can do so is if its a binary decision not an accept or reject vote, ie. Either accept the WA or a 2nd referendum will be called. Then its no longer the same vote because theres movement one way or another.

No, it has to be different from both of the previous two. If its the same as MV1, it's still a second vote on an identical motion!